[vwrap] Activity for charter: Proxies, Gateways, BSD, GPL...

Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com> Wed, 11 May 2011 20:23 UTC

Return-Path: <dzonatas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F10CEE07AC for <vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2011 13:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mp8PM5IjSSLv for <vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2011 13:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-px0-f179.google.com (mail-px0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30FF7E07AA for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2011 13:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pxi2 with SMTP id 2so540730pxi.38 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2011 13:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bamK+9u/9TrG3FrTHgUNP4J0Jn6tydffKKo6pZoDXWg=; b=cn9XLQLVpMcwwd09c3QBVCEAXHl9RCrxOzejQ2xuerAa98YCPNqgD2GiPfSNjjW2qK bw0l09lpYzLdK+SOv9ELnRknnGYEHp9cIgLjYtYyNnjpOBiE+cBU0zwNiz3IH2VLnfpP Leq7NraIgUFFGsoXHa7WHBYeiP39qQJm2+QUU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=WS+gVCvN2FHcqwAwm2SICl2e75qDg4oZBdtqtPN7xEjUCbEn9e31NL1aM66AJz6CRx y3WiImDbicbpKZKSbzGvx1hliFvS74K5rrYvyo6PphMS50h+IsCgFys7u8k6hTCLoHca uAEh8Q2bfbmv2fEI3oY59m/4tollSVn4EValU=
Received: by 10.68.54.170 with SMTP id k10mr13684096pbp.522.1305145398689; Wed, 11 May 2011 13:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.50] ([70.133.70.225]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 8sm184987pbw.23.2011.05.11.13.23.16 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 11 May 2011 13:23:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4DCAEFFE.9080405@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 13:22:22 -0700
From: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110307 Icedove/3.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "vwrap@ietf.org" <vwrap@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: [vwrap] Activity for charter: Proxies, Gateways, BSD, GPL...
X-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap>
List-Post: <mailto:vwrap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 20:23:20 -0000

I'm fascinated with XML2RFC editor more for arithmetic simulation than 
just virtual land farms. They both can lead into accessible arithmetic 
computation. This has been quite the mushroom piece, yet there is no 
easy way to just hand people the experience of the requirements between 
BSD code and GPL code, and present all the ramifications with given 
experience, and how to navigate back the peace in standards.

I "think" we should limit VWRAP to proxies and gateways. With that, we 
should also assume original assets are not transferred upon request. If 
not, how to achieve that goal.

Note: BSD versus GPL debates are out of scope (and so is any anxiety 
induction of the same effect).

As Morgaine pointed out, there is disparity between the groups, so 
without prejudice I picked these two in order for us to straw-man the 
flow between IETF-VWRAP-BSD and IETF-VWRAP-GPL, and document that flow 
with XML2RFC. We are not dumb about this, so please no .

The flow of BSD to GPL is easier than GPL to BSD. I don't think that is 
as obvious, however ICANN's recent move to allow trademarks to overtake 
.net domains does provide useful means to accomplish that goal even 
within RFC nature.

Simply, for example, we can proxy or gateway the email address 
"agent@regionĀ©siteā„¢" to user@region.site.net by default from ICANN's 
spawned flow. This provides backwards compatibility with plain text RFCs 
and forward compatibility with XML2RFC.

If we also include arithmetic atomicals formatter (or such arithmetic 
patterns) that 3D games have taken for granted then we can cancel 
anxiety in the above two flows.

Imagine two media regions. The first media region allows only BSD 
content with ambiguous context. The second media region allows only GPL 
context with default GPL content.

Content-Type: Message; license=...

If we write XML2RFC.NET then we can quantize the fallacies of the 
proxies and gateways between the two media types, and achieve similar 
affect of the previous charter. We need some kind of default intent for 
non-arithmetic flows that do not apply to the above for the first 
obvious fallacy, which may be summarized as for polymerization of 
outstanding license issues.

No date set for this kind of milestone. I figure any BSD to GPL proxy 
and can default the "Expiration:" date with exceptions upon trademarks.

Does that make the economy easier?

-- 
--- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant